Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If a Bastion is stationed in your deployment zone, would it be okay to deploy a Dreadnaught on the top? And if yes, would he be able to fire all of his weapons, AND the Quadgun?

Which answer would you like, post-FAQ or Pre-FAQ?

The one that count :-)

I will give you both, so you can understand my frustration at the FAQs.

Without the FAQ the answer is a simple no: The very first section of the battlement rules informs us that battlements are part of a multi-structured building. The multi-structured building rules inform us that each section is treated as buildings of their own right. With these two things in mind you can come to the conclusion that battlements follow all the same rules as buildings, except in a few rules as noted in the battlement section. Therefore if an embarking limitation is noted in the building section of the rules, and it is not overturned in the battlement section of the rules, it is still in play for units embarking into the battlements.

If you flick to the building section of the rule book you will find a line making it so 'pure' infantry have permission to embark into a building as per the embarking limitations for transports.

I know they cannot Embark the building, but can't they start there? No embarking is going on, and they can still jump to get down, if they should be so inclined.

I found the second part myself under the Gun Emplacement rules, so no. It can fire either its own weapons or the quadgun. Not both.

With the FAQ the answer is a resounding YES!

This is not because there was a question asking about what units can embark onto a battlement though, with someone from Game Workshop giving permission to more then 'pure' infantry to embark. While doing research on this possibility of embarking a tank on top of a battlement I was handed a FAQ that made complete mockery of the rules written in the rule book. This FAQ was questioning the Armour Value of battlements, which do not have any because attacks are resolved against the unit on the battlement and not the battlement itself. Instead of providing an answer like that one, we got an answer that was along the lines of: Battlements are not buildings and only exist to provide a 4+ cover save to the unit on top.

Battlements are NOT buildings...

While I do not think the answer was intending to remove all the limitations put in place by the building rules you can see the problem with this answer. Thanks to the wording it did just that! By stating that they are not buildings they effectively removed the only line of text preventing non-infantry units from embarking onto the battlements. Thanks to the fact the rules for embarking models into a battlement simply state 'A model within 2 inches from an access point can embark...' you technically have permission for ANY model to embark onto a battlement.

It got me to scream "TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS!" at the top of my lungs....

JinxDragon wrote:
With the FAQ the answer is a resounding YES!

This is not because there was a question asking about what units can embark onto a battlement though, with someone from Game Workshop giving permission to more then 'pure' infantry to embark. While doing research on this possibility of embarking a tank on top of a battlement I was handed a FAQ that made complete mockery of the rules written in the rule book. This FAQ was questioning the Armour Value of battlements, which do not have any because attacks are resolved against the unit on the battlement and not the battlement itself. Instead of providing an answer like that one, we got an answer that was along the lines of: Battlements are not buildings and only exist to provide a 4+ cover save to the unit on top.

Battlements are NOT buildings...

While I do not think the answer was intending to remove all the limitations put in place by the building rules you can see the problem with this answer. Thanks to the wording within the answer it did just that! By stating that they are not buildings they effectively removed the only line of text preventing non-infantry units from embarking onto the battlements.

It got me to scream "TANKS CAN CLIMB LADDERS!" at the top of my lungs....

Don't forget post-FAQ vehicles can not fire Gun Emplacements, so while the Dread can go up there, he cannot shoot the gun.

As for your question if they start there, do they get around the embarking rules?

The answer to that question is no as they are still considered 'embarking' at the time of deployment. Even though the embarking is taking place prior to the start of the game, it is still taking place in one way or another. This is because, without using the embarking rules, you do not have permission to place the model inside another model or a piece of terrain. Therefore trying to create an argument that states 'I am not embarking, just starting there' runs afoul of the fact you do not have a rule giving you permission to start there. The only one that does that is embarking, so you would have to follow the limitations for embarking even if your doing the embarking before game turn 1.

Lucky for you, thanks to that FAQ, there is no limitation stating a vehicle can not embark into a battlement... however I personally think it was an unintentional side-effect.

JinxDragon wrote:
As for your question if they start there, do they get around the embarking rules?

The answer to that question is no as they are still considered 'embarking' at the time of deployment. Even though the embarking is taking place prior to the start of the game, it is still taking place in one way or another. This is because, without using the embarking rules, you do not have permission to place the model inside another model or a piece of terrain. Therefore trying to create an argument that states 'I am not embarking, just starting there' runs afoul of the fact you do not have a rule giving you permission to start there. The only one that does that is embarking, so you would have to follow the limitations for embarking even if your doing the embarking before game turn 1.

Lucky for you, thanks to that FAQ, there is no limitation stating a vehicle can not embark into a battlement....

You do not embark into the battlements, as per the FAQ it is not a section of the building that can be embarked upon.

Can you explain your reasoning a little more DeathReaper?

JinxDragon wrote:
Can you explain your reasoning a little more DeathReaper?

Sure, the FAQ says that the battlements are not something that units can embark into.

40K FAQ wrote:Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units
occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the
assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an
occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a
fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this
situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the
fortification.

Plus the Battlements are separate from the building itself:

40K FAQ wrote:Q. If so, do battlements count as a separate building, or is the
bastion a multi-part building? (p95)
A: Battlements are treated as being separate from the
building itself, simply acting as cover for any models on top
of the building in question – see the rules for battlements
on page 95.

Neither of those address, let alone over-turn, the battlement rules themselves. While the do further remove the building tag, which is the problem I mentioned earlier, it isn't within the building section of the rule book that permission to embark into/onto a battlement is found. After all; there are specific rules within the battlement section of the book that talk about how a unit embarks, so even removing the building section talking about similar you still have rules that you can follow to embark onto/into the battlements themselves. Permission to embark has therefore been granted... a little too freely as the limitation against vehicles are found in the building section that are no longer applied at all.

This does "models defending a fortification’s battlements... do not count as embarked inside the fortification." (40K FAQ)

as well as this: "Battlements are treated as being separate from the building itself" (40K FAQ)

The Battlements are not a part of the building, they are " treated as being separate from the building itself"

Irrelevant; even treating them as separate you still apply the battlement rules to the battlements themselves....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those curious, the FAQ I was referring to that I really... really... reaaaaaallly HATE is:

Q. W hat is the armour value of battlements? (p95)

A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

JinxDragon wrote:
Irrelevant; even treating them as separate you still apply the battlement rules to the battlements themselves....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those curious, the FAQ I was referring to that I really... really... reaaaaaallly HATE is:

Q. W hat is the armour value of battlements? (p95)

A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building. They serve to protect any models on the roof of
the building in the same way as barricades and walls (see
page 104), offering a 4+ cover save.

Right, those three FAQ's coupled together tell us that you do not embark onto a battlement as the battlement is not a building, it is just the top of one and Line of Sight works as normal and does not require fire points like an embarked unit etc...

Deathreaper,

Can you please stand back and take a look at your argument. From where I am sitting it appears as if you are arguing that you do not apply the rules battlements because they are not buildings. While, thanks to the poorly written FAQ's, an argument for not applying the building rules to battlements can be made nothing in these FAQ's tells us that we can not apply the rules for battlements to the battlements. As the rules for battlements give us rules on how you go about embarking units onto/into a battlement, independent of any other section of the book, you can not honestly be arguing that no permission exists....

Even if battlements are not buildings, they are still battlements and governed by the rules for battlements!

The point DR is making is that post-FAQ you don't embark onto battlements, because they are no longer considered a building.

A model on the battlements is just on the battlements, not embarked.

If he is trying to create an argument that you carry out an action very similar to embarking, but don't actually call it embarking, then I would say he is splitting hairs needlessly. I would also have to disagree because the battlement rules I am pointing everyone to use terminology such as 'A unit can embark directly to' and 'are not fearless like other embarked units.' If they are not embarked onto the battlements, then it is very unusual choice of words throughout this section.

I will grant him this: They are uniquely embarked, with their own rules telling us what this incurs.

Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units
occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the
assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an
occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a
fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this
situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the
fortification.

This does not say that you do not embark onto the battlements. It only says units embarked on the battlements are not embarked inside other parts of the building. Remember its two seperate buildings. Lets call an imperial bastion Building A and its battlements Building B. If I charge Building A units defending building B cannot fire overwatch becouse they are not embarked in the building being charged.

The FAQ has some real problems though. In the span of two questions they tell you battlments are buildings, and then the exact opposit.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Q. If a fortification you are in is charged, are your units
occupying it allowed to make Overwatch shots against the
assaulters from any Fire Points in the same manner as an
occupied Transport? (p80/97)
A: Yes. Note, however, that models defending a
fortification’s battlements may not fire Overwatch in this
situation, as they do not count as embarked inside the
fortification.

This does not say that you do not embark onto the battlements. It only says units embarked on the battlements are not embarked inside other parts of the building. Remember its two seperate buildings. Lets call an imperial bastion Building A and its battlements Building B. If I charge Building A units defending building B cannot fire overwatch becouse they are not embarked in the building being charged.

The FAQ has some real problems though. In the span of two questions they tell you battlments are buildings, and then the exact opposit.

Nope, this says that battlements are not buildings:

40K FAQ wrote:Q. W hat is the armour value of battlements? (p95)

A: Battlements have no armour value as they are not a
building...

As they are not buildings you can not embark upon them.

The rules in the BRB were written with the language assuming they were a part of the building in a multi-part building, but the FAQ changed that so there is no longer a need to embark onto the battlements as they are not a building.

They are similar to standing behind any wall.

 DJGietzen wrote:
This does not say that you do not embark onto the battlements. It only says units embarked on the battlements are not embarked inside other parts of the building. Remember its two seperate buildings. Lets call an imperial bastion Building A and its battlements Building B. If I charge Building A units defending building B cannot fire overwatch becouse they are not embarked in the building being charged.

The FAQ has some real problems though. In the span of two questions they tell you battlments are buildings, and then the exact opposit.

They never call them buildings int he FAQ. They point out that they are a separate part of the multi-part building, but are not actually a building themselves.

Before the FAQ, yes, it was two separate buildings and moving onto the battlements would be embarking into that building.
Post-FAQ, though, battlements are not buildings, despite being a part of a multi-part building.

If battlements are not a building or a vehicle, moving onto them can not be considered 'embarking' (as in, the rules-based definition of 'embarking', rather than the casual use of the word) because there are no rules for embarking into anything except buildings and vehicles.

Except for all those rules under the section titled reaching the roof that inform you how to 'embark to' the battlements....

It really is splitting hairs, I agree to that, and I can see where you are coming from but that doesn't eliminate the terminology chosen throughout this section of the book. I can form an argument that would support your side a little, that they are using the word embark to mean going into the building then disembarking to the battlements, but that only covers about 95% of the use of the terminology 'embark.' It is used in a section just prior to this one when talking about the fact units on a battlement are not fearless, unlike other embarked units, so the writer clearly viewed the unit on the battlement as embarked for that particular situation. It also has a way to embark directly to the battlements, so that particular rule has nothing to do about going through the building itself at all.

Like I said before; If it isn't embarking then they have a very interesting choice of words throughout this section.

JinxDragon wrote:
Except for all those rules under the section titled reaching the roof that inform you how to 'embark to' the battlements....

Which the FzQ's changed as the battlements are no longer a building, just a open roof part of a building.

Which brings me back to the part you seem to constantly overlook for some reason: These rules are found in the battlement section of the book....

JinxDragon wrote:
..., so the writer clearly viewed the unit on the battlement as embarked for that particular situation. .

The writer also viewed the bastion as a multi-part building, rather than a multi-part thing that has no actual rules.


The FAQ broke that by making battlements no longer buildings.

JinxDragon wrote:
Which brings me back to the part you seem to constantly overlook for some reason: These rules are found in the battlement section of the book....

as Insnaiak said "The writer also viewed the bastion as a multi-part building, rather than a multi-part thing that has no actual rules. "

The battlements are only found on buildings anyway, the writer assumed the bastion was the top of a building, as proven on page 95: "A building with battlements..." (P. 95)

That made me sit back and think, Insaniak. This is one of the reasons why I do like seeing you post here, you can make a compelling argument within a simple sentence. While, personally, I still disagree with this view it is now proved well enough to me that it is a valid concern. Rule wise it makes no real difference, we still follow the 'embarking' methods defined by the battlement rules, but it is a very good argument when pondering semantics. How accurate is the terminology used throughout the the battlement section, thanks to those FAQ's, and is it possible that some of the already defined words have completely lost their meaning?

I no longer have a good answer to that question, because it is a question only the original writer answer. One fact is pretty clear though; the FAQ's have made such a huge mess of the section that it is possible to state certain words have lost all original meaning. It is possible to debate that the chosen terminology may have only ever been selected because the writer was building on a frame that begun in the building section of the rule book. If you then remove that basic frame work, all rules written with that frame work in mind must also be examined closer and maybe even removed as well. Therefore the use of the terminology 'embark,' while not directly addressed by the FAQ, may no longer be appropriate.

In short by, and pardon by use of vulgar language here but I hate these FAQ's that much, sh*tting all over the rules themselves it has rendered whatever meaning the person penning the rules had to be completely and utterly pointless....